THE TIMES POLL : Voters Split Evenly Over ‘Big Green’

California is deeply divided over the sweeping environmental initiative called “Big Green” by its sponsors and the measure has become highly politicized, the Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

Listed on the Nov. 6 ballot as Proposition 128, the initiative has polarized voters along lines of political philosophy and place of residence. People’s attitudes about the ambitious initiative also are shaped by their feelings toward its co-sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica).

Hayden, the former anti-war radical and ex-husband of actress Jane Fonda, has a negative image and that tends to rub off adversely on the initiative, the survey showed. That is why the measure’s opponents have dubbed it in television commercials “the Hayden initiative.”

The Times Poll found registered voters almost evenly split over the ambitious proposal--44% against, 42% for and 14% undecided. That amounts to a statistical tie, given a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction. And it is about the same as what the Times poll found last month, when 44% favored the measure and 42% opposed it.

But among voters considered the most likely to actually cast ballots, Proposition 128 is trailing by roughly 12 points, the survey found.

Little of this polarization, however, holds true for two popular ballot initiatives that would impose term limits on legislators and other state elected officials. Both enjoy wide support.

Proposition 131, a measure sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp that not only would impose term limits but also would usher in a system of public financing of political campaigns, is favored by 51% to 34% with 15% undecided, the survey showed. This standing is virtually unchanged from last month.

Proposition 140, a much tougher term limits proposal that also would eliminate legislators’ pensions and cut their operating budgets in half, is favored by 49% to 32%, with 19% undecided. The measure, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, has lost some support since the Times poll interviewed voters about it in September. At that time, the proposal was favored 55% to 28%.

The latest Times survey does not reflect any impact from a multimillion-dollar blitz of television commercials that the anti-term-limit campaign has begun running. The TV ads, featuring actress Angela Lansbury, started about the time this survey’s interviews were ending.

The Times Poll also asked voters about two ballot measures that would increase taxes on alcoholic beverages. People were divided about equally on each of them.

Proposition 134, the so-called “nickel-a-drink” liquor tax initiative, was favored by 45% and opposed by 42%, with 13% undecided.

Proposition 126, which would impose much smaller tax hikes on liquor, was supported by 44% and opposed by 43%, with 13% undecided.

The “nickel-a-drink” initiative, Proposition 134, is supported by a coalition of health, consumer and law enforcement groups. The lesser tax measure, Proposition 126, was placed on the ballot by the Legislature at the behest of the alcoholic beverage industry to compete against the proposed steeper tax increase.

Interviewers found that self-described nondrinkers solidly favor the measures, and these people represent almost half the electorate. But drinkers--the other half of the electorate--oppose the measures decidedly.

In this survey, the Times poll interviewed 1,941 registered voters by telephone over six days ending Wednesday night. The survey was supervised by Susan Pinkus, assistant Times Poll director.

Proposition 128--the environmental initiative--would ban cancer-causing chemicals in food, tax oil companies to pay for the cleanup of offshore oil spills, preserve ancient redwood forests and try to slow the destruction of the ozone layer. Opponents--corporate interests including oil and chemical companies, agribusiness and the timber industry, among others--contend that the measure is too complex, over-reaches and would cause economic havoc.

It has been aggressively endorsed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein. But, according to this survey, Feinstein now is benefiting only marginally, if at all, from her support of the measure. The same holds true for Republican Sen. Pete Wilson’s opposition to the initiative, which hurts him only marginally, if at all.

“There was a wide assumption last spring that Big Green would be above politics, that there would be a powerful consensus behind it. But that assumption has turned out to be dead wrong,” said Times political analyst William Schneider. “There’s probably no more deeply politicized issue on the California ballot. The issue has become heavily symbolic and ideological.”

Democrats support Proposition 128 by 5 to 3, but Republicans oppose it by more than 2 to 1. Liberals back it 5 to 2, but conservatives are opposed by the same ratio. Moderates are evenly divided.

Voters in the urban centers of Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area support Big Green. But people in the Central Valley farm belt oppose “the Hayden initiative” by 5 to 3. Voters living in Southern California outside of Los Angeles County are against Proposition 128. When interviewers asked voters for their impressions of Assemblyman Hayden, only 26% said it was favorable and 44% reported it was unfavorable. People with a favorable impression of the legislator back the environmental initiative by more than 2 to 1. Those who dislike Hayden oppose it by 5 to 2. Voters who have no opinion of Hayden support the measure by 5 to 3.

Younger voters--those under age 40--back the measure by 5 to 3. Conversely, people age 40 and over oppose it by 3 to 2.

VOTER PREFERENCES

Following are the results from a Los Angeles Times Poll of 1,941 registered voters.

If the election were held today, how would you vote on the following propositions?

NOW SEPTEMBER AUGUST 126--Alcohol Tax For 44% N/A 49% Against 43% N/A 38% 128--”Big Green” For 42% 44% 44% Against 44% 42% 42% 131--Term Limits, Campaign Financing For 51% 50% 47% Against 34% 34% 34% 134--Alcohol Surtax For 45% N/A 47% Against 42% N/A 37% 140--Term Limits, Legislator’s Retirement For 49% 55% 52% Against 32% 28% 27%

SOURCE: Los Angeles Times Poll